I used to be critical of George W. Bush until I realized that in this post 9/11 world, I need a strong, decisive leader who knows what to do, and isn't burdened by the need to consult with Congress, the Judiciary, or members of former administrations (or his, for that matter) to do what is necessary to keep my family safe. On the very rare occasions where he may need advice, Vice President Cheny is able to help him fill in all the gaps that may exist.
In addition, W is one of the few presidents who has shown the moral fiber and certitude to address the moral gaps in this nation: the right to pray in public schools (private prayer is not enough to show one's faith on God), correcting the inequities in the stratified tax brackets by passing badly needed cuts for those who work the hardest and appointing strict constructionist judges to the Federal Bench (maybe that mistake, Roe vs. Wade will finally get overturned) to protect the Constitution vs. those who think its interpretation needs to somehow "change with the times."
Those who criticize Bush should not be treated too harshly. Rather they should be given the opportunity to see how his leadership has made this not only a kinder, gentler nation as his father saw a vision of, but a *safer* one as well. Fox news is a good place to start with this insight. The one exception to this is those who choose to criticize The War on Terror or our Troops. These misguided yet dangerous critics (the New York Times and its patseys like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman in particular) need to be shown to the rest of America, in no uncertain terms, as being Soft on Terror and Undermining our National Security by questioning our Leaders and their Policies. What would they rather have happened? That Saddam stayed in power?
Thank God for George W. Bush. Hopefully his brother will run in 2008, though Bill Frist would be an acceptable alternative.
"By your logic, if I vote for a candidate who doesn't win, I can then resort to armed insurrection. After all, I tried "due process" and it got me nowhere."
Going by the examples I cited, I don't think Rosa Parks, MLK or W. Mark Felt would have advocated armed insurrection.
"Ad-Infinitem" postulations (e.g. taking a debate from implications of civil-disobediance to mean "armed insurrection") are a logical fallacies and do not serve to further calm, reasoned debate.
If I applied your logic to your response with Rosa Parks, MLK and W. Mark Felt, we could speculate the following results in history, as these are people who violated due process in protesting something they thought was wrong:
1) Black people might still be required by law in certain states to sit in the back of the bus when white people wanted their seat 2) Nixon would have gotten off for his crimes scott free and F.I.S.A. would never have become law. 3) we might very well have seen *more* armed insurrection with respect to the African American fight for civil rights. Thgough it is worth noting that MLK and Rosa Parks were advocates of non-violent civil disobedience. Malcolm X did not share the non-violent view ["by any means necessary"] so I did not cite him as an example.
However, doing that would be adolescent of me (to say the least).
Sammy Baby's post best describe my feelings in this matter: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178633&cid =14809095 If you don't agree with me (or him for that matter), that's OK, but please remember that "Ad-Infinitem" postulations (e.g. taking a debate from implications of civil-disobediance to mean "armed insurrection") and Ad Infinitum attacks (e.g. "adolescent") are logical fallacies which do not serve to further calm, reasoned debate.
Not following due process may be what gets him in this case (maybe).
But as others have pointed out here, following due process may very well have gotten him nowehere.
Sometimes, moral values require we follow the means neccessry to get something exposed outside of "due process." I'll leave it to you to decide what those circumstances may be, but although it is almost a cliche at this point to point it out, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Deep Throat would heartily disagree with you here. Too bad two of the three are dead now...
"Of course, if it were me, I'd go to prison with a big, shit-eating grin on my face."
I think you're blowing hot air. While I agree with your sentiments, the reality is that for most people Jail, even in the name of a Just Cause like this, is not a realistic option. For Jail to work you'd have to be willing and able to pay for standing up.
Lets look at some of the potential costs in this case:
1) loss of income while in jail (unless you have the cash to continue clipping stocks and bonds). Good luck getting a loan to pay on that mortgage while you're in jail if you are a homeowner, BTW. 2) explaining to family/wife and/or kids why you need a birthday cake and your christmas gifts delivered to the pokey 3) if you are married, look out for a potential divorce if you're spouse's feelings on the matter (and finances) are not in complete agreement with yours. Then there is the price your kids have to pay for *your* decision here. 4) if you have kids, skipping out on three years or more of their life. If your child(ren) is very young, this could be a serious loss for them and you. 5) permanent record as a convicted felon, making employment much harder (except for sympathtic employers, which there may ot may not be, since anyone in the chain of command at a given potential employer could shoot your application down without your ever knowing about it). 6) the legal fees associated with the (criminal) case 7) if convicted, you are now also wide open to a civil suit, which, in a case like this, could force you into bankruptcy (better hope you aren't already bankrupt, then you're really screwed) and cost you, financially, almost everything you have 8) family which does not agree with you may disown you (you may not want these family members around anyway, but its still another cost) which may or may not be problematic for you and or your spouse/children (assuming you have them) 9) The media may not even notice (or care) about your plight/martyrdom, making your sacrifice worthless
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that fighting the evil that govrenments and corporations do is worhwhile, especially in a case like this, but don't think for a moment that this guy thought this scenario would happen to him (foolish/unfortunate as that may be).
Here, the main issue, aside from the L.A. Prosecutor having the appearnce of being in the pocket of special interests and not representing the best interests of the public, is that there does not appear to be any law that protects him from prosecution.
From TFA: "Although state law protects whistle-blowers from retaliation by their employers, they can still be criminally prosecuted, said Tom Devine, legal director at the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project.
"It's very rare that it's successful," he said. "It's a tactic where the primary goal may be to scare other would-be whistle-blowers rather than a realistic attempt to obtain a conviction."
this kind of thing, while dissapointing, should come as no surprise. The UK has been big on "security" for some time. Cameras are everywhere, especially in the larger cities. The plan to have a back door into windows boxes is dissapoining because of the hole it can leave for exploits and the fact that those who are very interested in keeping information on their computers hidden from prying eyes (e.g. actual terrorists - or at least the smarter ones) will be able to do so until the information is no longer useful (i.e. people are dead).
I for one am thankful that no matter where I go in the nation, I can be sure that every station of the same genre (assuming there is more than one) will sound just like home. Thank goodness for consolidation of radio.
I used to really get bent out of shape when I went up and down the radio dial and heard different music and different artists throughout the day. So much variety! It was so hard to figure out what was good and what to choose! Now, thanks to Clearchannel, Congress and the FCC, not only do radio stations sound the same up and down the dial, but they play the same songs all day long, day in and day out. Life is so much simpler this way; I no longer have to make decisions, since they can just tell me what is good by virtue of playing it all day long. Plus, all the commercials make for great content, too.
Mega radio knows exactly what I like: Shake 'n bake/Cookie Cutter Radio. Play a song until it is *beyond* dead, and then only play what they think the public will like, based on what other radio stations just like them are playing. And then there is payola in its various guises, to keep the playing field "predictable and stable" (i.e safe) for the major labels.
That's a good point. I was an early reader on this article and saw many posts with thoughts similar to yours after I posted mine (in knee-jerk fashion). My sentiments remain the same but, practically speaking, I'm in agreement with you: most major players will simply stop using his software, and many end users will just miss out as a result.
It's good to see someone with some amount of clout taking a stand against unreasonable constraint of fair use rights. I just hope that this becomes a catalyst in a chain reaction of rebellion against DRM, which manages access in the same way that a jail manages freedom (my apologies to the/.er who I took this.sig from - cant recall his/her name).
I have a Honda Civic-Hybrid and can say I agree with most of what you have said. The milage I get on my car (45 CTY, 52 HWY) is primarily based on my driving habits with it, not the fact that it is a hybrid. Note that my milage figures are based on the following formula:
1) the tank is neraly always filled with 1 fuel bar lit remaining (digital anologue fuel display) or approximately 60 miles of driving fuel left in the tank (I have driven 50 miles after this in this way and not run out of gas - ever). 2) the gas tank is almost always filled near to the lip of the tank at each fill-up (about 14 gallons) 3) keeping # 1 and 2 in mind my MPG = (number of miles driven on current tank)/(# of gallons put into tank)
My actual MPG is always about 4 MPG lower than than what the civic says I did.
Here is how I generally drive:
City acceleration: slightly slower than an avergae driver. City Deceleration: as slow as possible, unless in rush-hour/busy traffic, where this is not considerate to other drivers. In my car, when you hit the brake pedal with any force greater than a tap, two things happen: 1) fuel to the fours cylenders is cut so that only one cylender is fed fuel; the other four simply idle the motor down with their weight. this factor alone cuts a lot of energy out of the equation and helps the car to slow significantly, along with saving a bit of fuel. 2) the electric motor, which is married to the combustion engine and transmission, switches polarity and becomes a generator, siphoning inertia from the car at it's maximum possible rate (about 18 horesepower IIRC) and charges the battery. These two things mean that if you just barely hit the brake pedal with more than a tap, you can, if you time things right (easy to do well with some practice), come to a full stop by means of the regenerative braking system and fuel cutoff, while using virtually none of your brakes. I have had my car for four years and have not had to change my brakes at all yet. The last time honda service checked the brakes, they were about 35% worn, or have 65% of the pads remaining. This also has the added benefit of putting as much as possible of the inertia/energy back in the batteries of my car, which can then be used to save fuel while accelerating by virtue of the electric motor.
This is the primary means by which you save fule in a hybrid in the city: accelerate normally, not rapidly, and brake as slowly as you can. If you don't drive a hybrid this way (that is, to the extent that you "gun it" and brake excessively), you really toss out the window most of the aspects of fuel saving that it can give you. This is why consumer reports stated that when they tested the Civic-Hybrid they only got 5 MPG better than a conventional civic of the same type: they drove it like a normal car and didn't take real advantage of its regenerative capacity. OTOH, they chose to excercise the conveneinece of driving it like a real car, and paid the MPG price for it.
Gradual acceleration and braking can greatly improve the milage of any car (up to 30% according to AAA), but I have found that a Hybrid greatly reduces wear and tear on brakes in particular if you drive it well, especially in the city. The other main factors, aside fom engine efficiency, and driving habits that improve mileage are the weight of the vehicle, the size of the engine and number of cylenders in it.
On the highway the rule of thumb is simple for a hybrid and any other car: drive as slow as you can afford to and tolerate without annoying the other drivers on the road. If you drive too slow for others, not only will they burn excess fuel as move to rapidly pass the annoying slow driver, you may get some dirty looks in the process. I find that if I follow a truck from a safe distance, I can get away with driving quite slow, as other motorists know they want to pass the truck anyway and know I'm just following it. If no truck is nearby I just follow a slow (but not pathetically grandma slow) car or do slightly above
That's one of the finer pieces of sarcasm I have seen in quite a while.
Still, I think part of what the parent poster was getting at is the often uneccessary complication/obsfucation of contracts/legal complaints and other legal matters. This does not mean it has to be free and open to the public when it's not approriate for certain parties to be invloved, but when things are so complicated that the common man cannot understand, let along participate, in legal matters without hiring an attorney (which is another debate entirely) we are, IMO, getting far away from the 14th Amendment and the need for an inclusive, informed and deliberative society in general.
I personally feel that all *contracts* and legal complaints/rulings should be written in "plain english." However, I have heard from some sharks, er, I mean attorneys, that while there is some usefulness to making legalese easier to understand, it does often serve the purpose of being very specific and distict to the task at hand.
Still, I think this can be done most often without having to resort to language that is often so arcane that unless you are an attorney you run the risk of not understanding (or worse, misunderstanding) the legal matter at hand. I dont mean to say that legalese does not have its place in very specific circumstances, just that it has gone way too far in that direction. Some may say that this is merely proposing the "dumbing down" of our legal system and/or it's language, but I believe a distinction can be made between the expression of an idea and/or concept and the understanding of it. For example, outside of a discussion amoungst collegues in a partuclar event for the purpose of absolute clarity and brevity, instead of saying "the biota experienced a 100% mortality response," why not just say "All the fish died"? If you look at both phrases literally they do say exactly the same thing, but one is a whole heck of a lot easier for the common man to understand.
Some may say, "but that just leaves room for people to misinterpret and misunderstand," to which I respond "and complicated legalese that takes twice as long to say does not?"
This all gets to a lot of hair-splitting over a subject that may be far off from what you were trying to communicate, if so please pardon my soapbox speech; I'll get off of it now.
"I only hope that ENT doctors and researchers continue to find ways to repair the ear's mechanisms and perhaps develop nerve repair techniques or we're gonna have a huge population of elderly deaf people 50 years from now (with commensurate increase in volume of PA systems etc.)"
The solution for me here was obvious: I have a set of custom molded earplugs to save my ears. They're normally kept in my car, so that I can have them readily available for whenever I do or find myself in any of the following activities:
* Mow the lawn * Go to the movies * Get in an airplane (getting "ON" an airplane is very dangerous, especially when it takes off...) * Get in a really loud car (not mine, which is retty quiet) * I find myself with too much noise around me
The earplugs fit inside my ear and are flesh colored, so they are fairly unobtrusive and very small; to date, no one has ever noticed (or at leat commented) my wearing them. They reduce the volume by a little more than 20 decibels and easily fit in a plastic container about the size of a 35mm film container. They cost me $70.00, with no insurance coverage needed. They are fairly comfortable; I have found I can wear them for about two hours before my ears feel irritated.
It's one of the best investments I ever made. As a result I still have my full range of hearing (having had a hearing test in the last year to check on it), despite the mild whine of tinitus at the 10-12KhZ range I often hear in a very quiet room. I'm sure it would have been much worse had I not used my plugs over the past six years.
So if loud noises bother you, consider having a good set of comfortable, small custom earplugs made for you.
Also if you do wear headphones, consider the following:
* keep the volume at the lowest level at which you can comfortably hear it. * use over the ear headphones, not bud style * buy the BEST headphones you can afford; better headphones will have less distortion and better, clearer sound re-production at lower sound levels, so you will not need as high a soud range to get comparable sound output (i.e. you can keep the volume lower for the same equivilant sound level and what you hear will sound better). I myself use Sennheiser HD595's, which retail for $285.00
I do agree with your sentiment about the EFF's legal victories and laud their efforts. However, the link on their website talking about "Victories" in MGM. vs. Grokster in the 9th Circuit is very misleading in that they ultimately lost the case in the worst possible way with the US Supreme Court's 9-0 reversal. This, unfortunatly, lends more support to Mr. Snoutintroff's arguments, at least with respect to this one case.
The fact that the EFF doesn't include this highly pertinent information makes me wonder about the end result of their other "victories" as well. It also makes me think about reconsidering renewal of my membership with them. Although Bonhomie Snoutintroff may be sour in his criticism and his sarcasm so palpable you can put it on a plate and carve it up for dinner, his complaints are still worth discussing, for whatever merit (or lack thereof) there may be.
"Kennelly said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that."
Oh, yes it is over.
The only thing that isn't "over" is a waste of taxpayer dollars fighting over what should be and is, in fact, the most effective control: Parents/Guardians actively raising their children.
The best thing you can spend on your kids is time. Grow up and set a positive example for them.
Dont like games you consider to be violent? Fine. Don't let your kids buy them, and don't buy such games for them. But *do* be prepared to explain why and don't act like a hypocrite (i.e. dont act violent yourself or watch violent programs). Instead give them something else that is fun and educational to do.
"While I greatly sympathize with the woman, and think the RIAA are a pack of subhuman scum, this is no different from suing someone based on phone records obtained from the phone company."
And there, sir, is the catch. Obtaining records from the phone company cannot be done without a court warrant. Only the DMCA and anti-terror/national security laws make exceptions for this. The DMCA should not be included in this privilage of bypassing the constitutional rights of the citizenry. It's an abuse and violation of the constitution. I'm not happy about the other two either, but you have to pick your battles.
Not all voters are evil or ignorant, as you claim they are. Some of us actually monitor what our politicians do, where they get their funding from and vote accordingly.
Your attempts to put every voter, party and politician in the "stupid" basket is an insult to those who fight this kind of nonsense.
Instead of blaming others (a very immature tactic) consider the things you might actually do to fight this:
* Join the EFF * Write your congressperson/senators when they do something you really like or don't like * Tell other people how you feel outside of slashdot * dont buy RIAA/MPAA labels, borrow them from the library if you must have them * Join the ACLU
Dont confuse us, the intelligent and active, with lame and lazy who complain and do little, or nothing, else.
In addition to saying "It wasn't me," she should challenge the constitutionality of the law which allows the RIAA to obtain her identity and examine her (allged) bandwith use habits WITHOUT A COURT WARRANT; illegal search and seizure is inadmissable in a court of law and the constitution is supposed to protect us against this sort of thing.
She could ask the ACLU to defend her on that basis and they might very well jump at the idea.
I've always hated that provision of the law (DMCA), which allows them to just bypass the courts and hire the cheapest lawyer/firm on the block to use their very deep lawyer funds chest to threaten the average joe with massive suits and see them capitulate, regardless of whether or not they are guilty.
You can't use a badly formulated law to punish the unjust and expect complete compliance from the masses.
Further, when copyright (copywrong?) can be extended to insane lengths of time far beyond what was intended (e.g. steamboat willie) and fair use takes a back seat to corporate profits, can we be very surprised at the disrespect/disobediance thses laws are receiving?
Sony is a Corporation. As a Corporation, Sony is recognized by every country in the world that matters as a legal "person." It can sue, be sued (big clue here...) and has other legal rights and responsibilities as any (very rich) person does.
Any attempt to bring criminal penalties against any single person inside of Sony would not only be highly misguided (since one would want to prove that they were knowingly acting *without* Sony Corporation's direct imperative) but ineffective as well, since putting one person in jail, unless they are on The Board, won't do much to hurt Sony financially and therefore wouldn't do much to discourage bad behavior in that particluar area in the long run.
Bringing criminal charges vs a Board Member over something like this would also be misguided, since one would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (95% certainty, or all 12 jurors) that they willfully were out to break whatever law in question when such circumstances could be easily assigned to another department or person who wouldnt matter much ("I had no idea that such and such was illegal, or that telling so and so to protect our copyright would mean so and so would undertake illegal methods.")
If you are talking about bringing crminal charges vs. Sony Corporation itself, you face the same difficult standard of proof to apply (beyond a resonable doubt - 95%) when you are talking about what would most likely be a non-tech savvy jury (likely non tech-concerned either, unless they all happen to be EFF members). Also Sony does have the money to get the best lawyers money can buy, and would also look to get the best venue for the judge, too. Then there are the endless appeals....
A civil suit is the best way for taxpayer money to be spent to have the best chance of success. The standard of proof is lower (preponderence of evidence - 75% certainty of 'guilt', or 9 jurors), the avenues of attack vs. the Corporation are higher, since no particluar law has to be violated, and the potentail for monetary penalties are *much* higher. Since money is only thing Corporations of that size really care about in the long run (aside from customer image, which basically translates into money anyway), this is crucial.
So, as you can see, a criminal indictment (only a felony would be worthwhile) while it sounds nice, would neither be cost effective, nor a good bet, nor in this circumstance especially damadging in the long run.
I know what you saying and I don't disagree; it would be nice to see more criminal charges being filed in what should be both civil and criminal matters. But money talks and The Texas AG, who probably knows a whole lot more about the law than you or me, took a good look at this and saw a civil case as the best way to proceed.
How do you permanently disable Autorun? IIRC, MS sais this couldn't be done under Windows. Of course, just because they say it can't be done (e.g., "You can't remove IE from Windows!") doesnt necessarily mean much, but still, I've never heard of a way to permanently disable it.
Just imagine a kind of non-profit computer orphanage where all misfit, er, I mean donated computers cpu cycles could be used for useful distributed computing, like, say seti@home, folding@home, or some other project that could end up benefitting humanity or some other living creature.
It sounds like a good idea to me, whatever OS is used to do it; though linux does have the benefit of being free (is it free as in speech?).
If you think about the alternator that exists in every automotive vehicle with an internal combustion engine, it's probably reasonable to assume that not all of the power output from the alternator is needed at any given time to power the vehicle's components, especially at highway speeds, where the alternator is really moving along; why let that excess energy go to waste?
If my assumption is correct there (someonle please correct me if this idea is full of bunk), then this idea could be expanded even further by having a larger, yet more efficient alternator which doesnt take any more kinetic energy from the drivetrain, yet still puts out more volts/amps, which, since it isn't needed anywhere else at the time, can be used in electrolysis and saved for later use - or used on the spot - or slowly put into the engine at a controlled rate.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
People in the know: did I guess this right or is it just ignorant speculation?
Anyway it seems like an interesting idea to me. And no, I didn't RTFA, I admit it...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
I used to be critical of George W. Bush until I realized that in this post 9/11 world, I need a strong, decisive leader who knows what to do, and isn't burdened by the need to consult with Congress, the Judiciary, or members of former administrations (or his, for that matter) to do what is necessary to keep my family safe. On the very rare occasions where he may need advice, Vice President Cheny is able to help him fill in all the gaps that may exist.
In addition, W is one of the few presidents who has shown the moral fiber and certitude to address the moral gaps in this nation: the right to pray in public schools (private prayer is not enough to show one's faith on God), correcting the inequities in the stratified tax brackets by passing badly needed cuts for those who work the hardest and appointing strict constructionist judges to the Federal Bench (maybe that mistake, Roe vs. Wade will finally get overturned) to protect the Constitution vs. those who think its interpretation needs to somehow "change with the times."
Those who criticize Bush should not be treated too harshly. Rather they should be given the opportunity to see how his leadership has made this not only a kinder, gentler nation as his father saw a vision of, but a *safer* one as well. Fox news is a good place to start with this insight. The one exception to this is those who choose to criticize The War on Terror or our Troops. These misguided yet dangerous critics (the New York Times and its patseys like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman in particular) need to be shown to the rest of America, in no uncertain terms, as being Soft on Terror and Undermining our National Security by questioning our Leaders and their Policies. What would they rather have happened? That Saddam stayed in power?
Thank God for George W. Bush. Hopefully his brother will run in 2008, though Bill Frist would be an acceptable alternative.
"By your logic, if I vote for a candidate who doesn't win, I can then resort to armed insurrection. After all, I tried "due process" and it got me nowhere."
d =14809095
Going by the examples I cited, I don't think Rosa Parks, MLK or W. Mark Felt would have advocated armed insurrection.
"Ad-Infinitem" postulations (e.g. taking a debate from implications of civil-disobediance to mean "armed insurrection") are a logical fallacies and do not serve to further calm, reasoned debate.
If I applied your logic to your response with Rosa Parks, MLK and W. Mark Felt, we could speculate the following results in history, as these are people who violated due process in protesting something they thought was wrong:
1) Black people might still be required by law in certain states to sit in the back of the bus when white people wanted their seat
2) Nixon would have gotten off for his crimes scott free and F.I.S.A. would never have become law.
3) we might very well have seen *more* armed insurrection with respect to the African American fight for civil rights. Thgough it is worth noting that MLK and Rosa Parks were advocates of non-violent civil disobedience. Malcolm X did not share the non-violent view ["by any means necessary"] so I did not cite him as an example.
However, doing that would be adolescent of me (to say the least).
Sammy Baby's post best describe my feelings in this matter:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178633&ci
If you don't agree with me (or him for that matter), that's OK, but please remember that "Ad-Infinitem" postulations (e.g. taking a debate from implications of civil-disobediance to mean "armed insurrection") and Ad Infinitum attacks (e.g. "adolescent") are logical fallacies which do not serve to further calm, reasoned debate.
Let's all be polite, shall we?
Not following due process may be what gets him in this case (maybe).
But as others have pointed out here, following due process may very well have gotten him nowehere.
Sometimes, moral values require we follow the means neccessry to get something exposed outside of "due process." I'll leave it to you to decide what those circumstances may be, but although it is almost a cliche at this point to point it out, Rosa Parks, MLK, and Deep Throat would heartily disagree with you here. Too bad two of the three are dead now...
"Of course, if it were me, I'd go to prison with a big, shit-eating grin on my face."
I think you're blowing hot air. While I agree with your sentiments, the reality is that for most people Jail, even in the name of a Just Cause like this, is not a realistic option. For Jail to work you'd have to be willing and able to pay for standing up.
Lets look at some of the potential costs in this case:
1) loss of income while in jail (unless you have the cash to continue clipping stocks and bonds). Good luck getting a loan to pay on that mortgage while you're in jail if you are a homeowner, BTW.
2) explaining to family/wife and/or kids why you need a birthday cake and your christmas gifts delivered to the pokey
3) if you are married, look out for a potential divorce if you're spouse's feelings on the matter (and finances) are not in complete agreement with yours. Then there is the price your kids have to pay for *your* decision here.
4) if you have kids, skipping out on three years or more of their life. If your child(ren) is very young, this could be a serious loss for them and you.
5) permanent record as a convicted felon, making employment much harder (except for sympathtic employers, which there may ot may not be, since anyone in the chain of command at a given potential employer could shoot your application down without your ever knowing about it).
6) the legal fees associated with the (criminal) case
7) if convicted, you are now also wide open to a civil suit, which, in a case like this, could force you into bankruptcy (better hope you aren't already bankrupt, then you're really screwed) and cost you, financially, almost everything you have
8) family which does not agree with you may disown you (you may not want these family members around anyway, but its still another cost) which may or may not be problematic for you and or your spouse/children (assuming you have them)
9) The media may not even notice (or care) about your plight/martyrdom, making your sacrifice worthless
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that fighting the evil that govrenments and corporations do is worhwhile, especially in a case like this, but don't think for a moment that this guy thought this scenario would happen to him (foolish/unfortunate as that may be).
He hired a lawyer for a reason.
especially for whistle-blowers.
Here, the main issue, aside from the L.A. Prosecutor having the appearnce of being in the pocket of special interests and not representing the best interests of the public, is that there does not appear to be any law that protects him from prosecution.
From TFA: "Although state law protects whistle-blowers from retaliation by their employers, they can still be criminally prosecuted, said Tom Devine, legal director at the Washington, D.C.-based Government Accountability Project.
"It's very rare that it's successful," he said. "It's a tactic where the primary goal may be to scare other would-be whistle-blowers rather than a realistic attempt to obtain a conviction."
My thoughts exactly.
the movie "Dirty Pretty Things" http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dirty_pretty_thing s
Sad, but not surprising, to see this kind of thing already happening.
when you consider the fact that the UK is very close to having a national ID card
n tity_card, 00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_national_ide
and
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6039076.html
and
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2039223
this kind of thing, while dissapointing, should come as no surprise. The UK has been big on "security" for some time. Cameras are everywhere, especially in the larger cities. The plan to have a back door into windows boxes is dissapoining because of the hole it can leave for exploits and the fact that those who are very interested in keeping information on their computers hidden from prying eyes (e.g. actual terrorists - or at least the smarter ones) will be able to do so until the information is no longer useful (i.e. people are dead).
Welcome to another part of our brave new world.
I for one am thankful that no matter where I go in the nation, I can be sure that every station of the same genre (assuming there is more than one) will sound just like home. Thank goodness for consolidation of radio.
I used to really get bent out of shape when I went up and down the radio dial and heard different music and different artists throughout the day. So much variety! It was so hard to figure out what was good and what to choose! Now, thanks to Clearchannel, Congress and the FCC, not only do radio stations sound the same up and down the dial, but they play the same songs all day long, day in and day out. Life is so much simpler this way; I no longer have to make decisions, since they can just tell me what is good by virtue of playing it all day long. Plus, all the commercials make for great content, too.
Mega radio knows exactly what I like: Shake 'n bake/Cookie Cutter Radio. Play a song until it is *beyond* dead, and then only play what they think the public will like, based on what other radio stations just like them are playing. And then there is payola in its various guises, to keep the playing field "predictable and stable" (i.e safe) for the major labels.
By the way, who are these "Sirius" people ayway?
That's a good point. I was an early reader on this article and saw many posts with thoughts similar to yours after I posted mine (in knee-jerk fashion). My sentiments remain the same but, practically speaking, I'm in agreement with you: most major players will simply stop using his software, and many end users will just miss out as a result.
It's good to see someone with some amount of clout taking a stand against unreasonable constraint of fair use rights. I just hope that this becomes a catalyst in a chain reaction of rebellion against DRM, which manages access in the same way that a jail manages freedom (my apologies to the /.er who I took this .sig from - cant recall his/her name).
I have a Honda Civic-Hybrid and can say I agree with most of what you have said. The milage I get on my car (45 CTY, 52 HWY) is primarily based on my driving habits with it, not the fact that it is a hybrid. Note that my milage figures are based on the following formula:
1) the tank is neraly always filled with 1 fuel bar lit remaining (digital anologue fuel display) or approximately 60 miles of driving fuel left in the tank (I have driven 50 miles after this in this way and not run out of gas - ever).
2) the gas tank is almost always filled near to the lip of the tank at each fill-up (about 14 gallons)
3) keeping # 1 and 2 in mind my MPG = (number of miles driven on current tank)/(# of gallons put into tank)
My actual MPG is always about 4 MPG lower than than what the civic says I did.
Here is how I generally drive:
City acceleration: slightly slower than an avergae driver.
City Deceleration: as slow as possible, unless in rush-hour/busy traffic, where this is not considerate to other drivers. In my car, when you hit the brake pedal with any force greater than a tap, two things happen:
1) fuel to the fours cylenders is cut so that only one cylender is fed fuel; the other four simply idle the motor down with their weight. this factor alone cuts a lot of energy out of the equation and helps the car to slow significantly, along with saving a bit of fuel.
2) the electric motor, which is married to the combustion engine and transmission, switches polarity and becomes a generator, siphoning inertia from the car at it's maximum possible rate (about 18 horesepower IIRC) and charges the battery.
These two things mean that if you just barely hit the brake pedal with more than a tap, you can, if you time things right (easy to do well with some practice), come to a full stop by means of the regenerative braking system and fuel cutoff, while using virtually none of your brakes. I have had my car for four years and have not had to change my brakes at all yet. The last time honda service checked the brakes, they were about 35% worn, or have 65% of the pads remaining. This also has the added benefit of putting as much as possible of the inertia/energy back in the batteries of my car, which can then be used to save fuel while accelerating by virtue of the electric motor.
This is the primary means by which you save fule in a hybrid in the city: accelerate normally, not rapidly, and brake as slowly as you can. If you don't drive a hybrid this way (that is, to the extent that you "gun it" and brake excessively), you really toss out the window most of the aspects of fuel saving that it can give you. This is why consumer reports stated that when they tested the Civic-Hybrid they only got 5 MPG better than a conventional civic of the same type: they drove it like a normal car and didn't take real advantage of its regenerative capacity. OTOH, they chose to excercise the conveneinece of driving it like a real car, and paid the MPG price for it.
Gradual acceleration and braking can greatly improve the milage of any car (up to 30% according to AAA), but I have found that a Hybrid greatly reduces wear and tear on brakes in particular if you drive it well, especially in the city. The other main factors, aside fom engine efficiency, and driving habits that improve mileage are the weight of the vehicle, the size of the engine and number of cylenders in it.
On the highway the rule of thumb is simple for a hybrid and any other car: drive as slow as you can afford to and tolerate without annoying the other drivers on the road. If you drive too slow for others, not only will they burn excess fuel as move to rapidly pass the annoying slow driver, you may get some dirty looks in the process. I find that if I follow a truck from a safe distance, I can get away with driving quite slow, as other motorists know they want to pass the truck anyway and know I'm just following it. If no truck is nearby I just follow a slow (but not pathetically grandma slow) car or do slightly above
"With the RIAA claiming vigilante rights over music copyrights..."
:-P
The RIAA did not claim any such vigilante rights - they were legally purchased from Congress, just like copyright extension.
So there.
That's one of the finer pieces of sarcasm I have seen in quite a while.
Still, I think part of what the parent poster was getting at is the often uneccessary complication/obsfucation of contracts/legal complaints and other legal matters. This does not mean it has to be free and open to the public when it's not approriate for certain parties to be invloved, but when things are so complicated that the common man cannot understand, let along participate, in legal matters without hiring an attorney (which is another debate entirely) we are, IMO, getting far away from the 14th Amendment and the need for an inclusive, informed and deliberative society in general.
I personally feel that all *contracts* and legal complaints/rulings should be written in "plain english." However, I have heard from some sharks, er, I mean attorneys, that while there is some usefulness to making legalese easier to understand, it does often serve the purpose of being very specific and distict to the task at hand.
Still, I think this can be done most often without having to resort to language that is often so arcane that unless you are an attorney you run the risk of not understanding (or worse, misunderstanding) the legal matter at hand. I dont mean to say that legalese does not have its place in very specific circumstances, just that it has gone way too far in that direction. Some may say that this is merely proposing the "dumbing down" of our legal system and/or it's language, but I believe a distinction can be made between the expression of an idea and/or concept and the understanding of it. For example, outside of a discussion amoungst collegues in a partuclar event for the purpose of absolute clarity and brevity, instead of saying "the biota experienced a 100% mortality response," why not just say "All the fish died"? If you look at both phrases literally they do say exactly the same thing, but one is a whole heck of a lot easier for the common man to understand.
Some may say, "but that just leaves room for people to misinterpret and misunderstand," to which I respond "and complicated legalese that takes twice as long to say does not?"
This all gets to a lot of hair-splitting over a subject that may be far off from what you were trying to communicate, if so please pardon my soapbox speech; I'll get off of it now.
"I only hope that ENT doctors and researchers continue to find ways to repair the ear's mechanisms and perhaps develop nerve repair techniques or we're gonna have a huge population of elderly deaf people 50 years from now (with commensurate increase in volume of PA systems etc.)"
l .asp?transid=newHD-3
The solution for me here was obvious: I have a set of custom molded earplugs to save my ears. They're normally kept in my car, so that I can have them readily available for whenever I do or find myself in any of the following activities:
* Mow the lawn
* Go to the movies
* Get in an airplane (getting "ON" an airplane is very dangerous, especially when it takes off...)
* Get in a really loud car (not mine, which is retty quiet)
* I find myself with too much noise around me
The earplugs fit inside my ear and are flesh colored, so they are fairly unobtrusive and very small; to date, no one has ever noticed (or at leat commented) my wearing them. They reduce the volume by a little more than 20 decibels and easily fit in a plastic container about the size of a 35mm film container. They cost me $70.00, with no insurance coverage needed. They are fairly comfortable; I have found I can wear them for about two hours before my ears feel irritated.
It's one of the best investments I ever made. As a result I still have my full range of hearing (having had a hearing test in the last year to check on it), despite the mild whine of tinitus at the 10-12KhZ range I often hear in a very quiet room. I'm sure it would have been much worse had I not used my plugs over the past six years.
So if loud noises bother you, consider having a good set of comfortable, small custom earplugs made for you.
Also if you do wear headphones, consider the following:
* keep the volume at the lowest level at which you can comfortably hear it.
* use over the ear headphones, not bud style
* buy the BEST headphones you can afford; better headphones will have less distortion and better, clearer sound re-production at lower sound levels, so you will not need as high a soud range to get comparable sound output (i.e. you can keep the volume lower for the same equivilant sound level and what you hear will sound better).
I myself use Sennheiser HD595's, which retail for $285.00
http://www.sennheiserusa.com/newsite/productdetai
but they can be found around $250.00.
You could also buy noise cancelling headphones for around the same amount.
I do agree with your sentiment about the EFF's legal victories and laud their efforts. However, the link on their website talking about "Victories" in MGM. vs. Grokster in the 9th Circuit is very misleading in that they ultimately lost the case in the worst possible way with the US Supreme Court's 9-0 reversal. This, unfortunatly, lends more support to Mr. Snoutintroff's arguments, at least with respect to this one case.
The fact that the EFF doesn't include this highly pertinent information makes me wonder about the end result of their other "victories" as well. It also makes me think about reconsidering renewal of my membership with them. Although Bonhomie Snoutintroff may be sour in his criticism and his sarcasm so palpable you can put it on a plate and carve it up for dinner, his complaints are still worth discussing, for whatever merit (or lack thereof) there may be.
"Kennelly said the law would interfere with the First Amendment and there wasn't a compelling enough reason, such as preventing imminent violence, to allow that."
Oh, yes it is over.
The only thing that isn't "over" is a waste of taxpayer dollars fighting over what should be and is, in fact, the most effective control: Parents/Guardians actively raising their children.
The best thing you can spend on your kids is time. Grow up and set a positive example for them.
Dont like games you consider to be violent? Fine. Don't let your kids buy them, and don't buy such games for them. But *do* be prepared to explain why and don't act like a hypocrite (i.e. dont act violent yourself or watch violent programs). Instead give them something else that is fun and educational to do.
Too bad that for some this is so hard to do...
"While I greatly sympathize with the woman, and think the RIAA are a pack of subhuman scum, this is no different from suing someone based on phone records obtained from the phone company."
And there, sir, is the catch. Obtaining records from the phone company cannot be done without a court warrant. Only the DMCA and anti-terror/national security laws make exceptions for this. The DMCA should not be included in this privilage of bypassing the constitutional rights of the citizenry. It's an abuse and violation of the constitution. I'm not happy about the other two either, but you have to pick your battles.
Not all voters are evil or ignorant, as you claim they are. Some of us actually monitor what our politicians do, where they get their funding from and vote accordingly.
Your attempts to put every voter, party and politician in the "stupid" basket is an insult to those who fight this kind of nonsense.
Instead of blaming others (a very immature tactic) consider the things you might actually do to fight this:
* Join the EFF
* Write your congressperson/senators when they do something you really like or don't like
* Tell other people how you feel outside of slashdot
* dont buy RIAA/MPAA labels, borrow them from the library if you must have them
* Join the ACLU
Dont confuse us, the intelligent and active, with lame and lazy who complain and do little, or nothing, else.
What have *you* done lately?
In addition to saying "It wasn't me," she should challenge the constitutionality of the law which allows the RIAA to obtain her identity and examine her (allged) bandwith use habits WITHOUT A COURT WARRANT; illegal search and seizure is inadmissable in a court of law and the constitution is supposed to protect us against this sort of thing.
She could ask the ACLU to defend her on that basis and they might very well jump at the idea.
I've always hated that provision of the law (DMCA), which allows them to just bypass the courts and hire the cheapest lawyer/firm on the block to use their very deep lawyer funds chest to threaten the average joe with massive suits and see them capitulate, regardless of whether or not they are guilty.
You can't use a badly formulated law to punish the unjust and expect complete compliance from the masses.
Further, when copyright (copywrong?) can be extended to insane lengths of time far beyond what was intended (e.g. steamboat willie) and fair use takes a back seat to corporate profits, can we be very surprised at the disrespect/disobediance thses laws are receiving?
OK, you're being naive here.
Sony is a Corporation. As a Corporation, Sony is recognized by every country in the world that matters as a legal "person." It can sue, be sued (big clue here...) and has other legal rights and responsibilities as any (very rich) person does.
Any attempt to bring criminal penalties against any single person inside of Sony would not only be highly misguided (since one would want to prove that they were knowingly acting *without* Sony Corporation's direct imperative) but ineffective as well, since putting one person in jail, unless they are on The Board, won't do much to hurt Sony financially and therefore wouldn't do much to discourage bad behavior in that particluar area in the long run.
Bringing criminal charges vs a Board Member over something like this would also be misguided, since one would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (95% certainty, or all 12 jurors) that they willfully were out to break whatever law in question when such circumstances could be easily assigned to another department or person who wouldnt matter much ("I had no idea that such and such was illegal, or that telling so and so to protect our copyright would mean so and so would undertake illegal methods.")
If you are talking about bringing crminal charges vs. Sony Corporation itself, you face the same difficult standard of proof to apply (beyond a resonable doubt - 95%) when you are talking about what would most likely be a non-tech savvy jury (likely non tech-concerned either, unless they all happen to be EFF members). Also Sony does have the money to get the best lawyers money can buy, and would also look to get the best venue for the judge, too. Then there are the endless appeals....
A civil suit is the best way for taxpayer money to be spent to have the best chance of success. The standard of proof is lower (preponderence of evidence - 75% certainty of 'guilt', or 9 jurors), the avenues of attack vs. the Corporation are higher, since no particluar law has to be violated, and the potentail for monetary penalties are *much* higher. Since money is only thing Corporations of that size really care about in the long run (aside from customer image, which basically translates into money anyway), this is crucial.
So, as you can see, a criminal indictment (only a felony would be worthwhile) while it sounds nice, would neither be cost effective, nor a good bet, nor in this circumstance especially damadging in the long run.
I know what you saying and I don't disagree; it would be nice to see more criminal charges being filed in what should be both civil and criminal matters. But money talks and The Texas AG, who probably knows a whole lot more about the law than you or me, took a good look at this and saw a civil case as the best way to proceed.
How do you permanently disable Autorun? IIRC, MS sais this couldn't be done under Windows. Of course, just because they say it can't be done (e.g., "You can't remove IE from Windows!") doesnt necessarily mean much, but still, I've never heard of a way to permanently disable it.
"God-belief and adherence to dogma are quite real, regardless of the reality of the gods in question and regardless of the validity of the dogma."
I'll agree with that.
No, really! I do!
Just imagine a kind of non-profit computer orphanage where all misfit, er, I mean donated computers cpu cycles could be used for useful distributed computing, like, say seti@home, folding@home, or some other project that could end up benefitting humanity or some other living creature.
It sounds like a good idea to me, whatever OS is used to do it; though linux does have the benefit of being free (is it free as in speech?).
I'll take a stab at this one...
If you think about the alternator that exists in every automotive vehicle with an internal combustion engine, it's probably reasonable to assume that not all of the power output from the alternator is needed at any given time to power the vehicle's components, especially at highway speeds, where the alternator is really moving along; why let that excess energy go to waste?
If my assumption is correct there (someonle please correct me if this idea is full of bunk), then this idea could be expanded even further by having a larger, yet more efficient alternator which doesnt take any more kinetic energy from the drivetrain, yet still puts out more volts/amps, which, since it isn't needed anywhere else at the time, can be used in electrolysis and saved for later use - or used on the spot - or slowly put into the engine at a controlled rate.
Just my thoughts, anyway.
People in the know: did I guess this right or is it just ignorant speculation?
Anyway it seems like an interesting idea to me. And no, I didn't RTFA, I admit it...
"Or should that be WHEN? It's not like this will be the last Sony DRM abuse story we see."
Take out the word "Sony" from that statement, and I'll be even more likely to agree it.
Having said that, DRM is *not* a crime.
It's just often stupid, abusive, and shortsighted.